The Forgotten Shiite Massacre at Sabra and Shatila

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
Even if this is the case..is the violence perpetrated by Israel for example justified, and right? especially if it is ongoing..
[/QUOTE]

You need to be more specific as to which violence you are speaking of. I, for instance, believe that Palestinian attacks on IDF forces are pretty legitimate and justified. I also believe that IDF attacks on bomb makers, armed militants, and Hamas leaders is justified. I also believe that some of the IDF attacks and actions are not justified or legitimate...most specifically those that don't pay due consideration (IMO) to the number of civilian casualties that might occur. No suicide bombings of buses, pizza parlors and malls are justified or legitimate in my mind.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
So Israel got rid of Hamas leaders, boo friggin hoo, no one cares.
[/QUOTE]

I wish that was the prevailing attitude but don't believe it is. If the IDF kills a Hamas leader, the prevailing attitude seems to be that 100 little Jewish children and their mothers are fair game for slaughter.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
but when lil kids are killed, then unless one is really biased, one can not condone it.
[/QUOTE]

That's part of the reason for me starting the thread. Apparently, it is less important that lil kids get killed than it is who are the killers. Depending upon the identity of the killer, it is either a heinous war crime or just a boys-will-be-boys attitude.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *Hamas blowing up kids in some pizza place is no diff than IDF blowing up some building full of innocent civilians
[/QUOTE]

The operative word here is "full". Is the building "full" of innocent kids or is it a fine "mix" of innocent kids and terrorist killers. You don't find an IDF tank "full" of innocent Jewish kids. I am very troubled by what I perceive as an accepted tactic of certain religiously inclined terrorist thugs to deliberately use large numbers of "innocent kids" and women and others as shields. When terrorists do this, you are sort of faced with a real Sophie's Choice. If the terrorist(s) that are legitimate targets will kill 100 people if they get away and they surround themselves with 10 innocent kids to protect themselves, do you walk away saving 10 innocent lives at the expense of the deaths of 100 others? These are not easy calls or easy decisions. And often, they must be made in split seconds. Sometimes it is better not to attack the building where the Hamas terrorist is hiding out amongst 100 innocents. Better to wait until he leaves and gets in his car and hit him with a missile. That's still a dangerous attack. Maybe 4 innocents also die. You can be darn sure that people will decry the slaughter of the 4 innocents by the IDF without considering the 100 that weren't killed in the building a moment before and the 100 that would have been killed in the imminent suicide attack.

When you hear people so easily and quickly label the death of 4 innocents in my example above as evidence of genocide and never say a peep about things like Sabra and Shatil circa 1985, it gets awfully old, awfully quick.

*Originally posted by myvoice: *

*You need to be more specific as to which violence you are speaking of. I, for instance, believe that Palestinian attacks on IDF forces are pretty legitimate and justified. I also believe that IDF attacks on bomb makers, armed militants, and Hamas leaders is justified. I also believe that some of the IDF attacks and actions are not justified or legitimate...most specifically those that don't pay due consideration (IMO) to the number of civilian casualties that might occur. No suicide bombings of buses, pizza parlors and malls are justified or legitimate in my mind. *

specific

Hamas/Fatah/al aqsa brigade can go after as many IDf personnel as they want. sure..
IDF can kill as many of the Hamas/Fatah guys as they want
Pizza parlours/public places are not right targets
indiscriminate shootings or taking actions where the civilian casualties could be high is also inappropriate.

*I wish that was the prevailing attitude but don't believe it is. If the IDF kills a Hamas leader, the prevailing attitude seems to be that 100 little Jewish children and their mothers are fair game for slaughter. *

I dont know if it is prevailing, but it is what we hear and see most.

*That's part of the reason for me starting the thread. Apparently, it is less important that lil kids get killed than it is who are the killers. Depending upon the identity of the killer, it is either a heinous war crime or just a boys-will-be-boys attitude. *

track record may be an issue also, the actions of syria are not continuing to this day and in that frequency, and people in refugee camps are not dealing with a continuation of violence on a frequent basis.

*The operative word here is "full". Is the building "full" of innocent kids or is it a fine "mix" of innocent kids and terrorist killers. *

Not only that, but pay attention to the wording of the reports that come out as well. Israeli forces shot and killed 12 ppl, including 4 "suspected" hamas members. whoa whoa..hold yer horses...in US and UK, we do not kill "suspects" scott peterson does not get teh chair because he is a suspect.

*You don't find an IDF tank "full" of innocent Jewish kids. I am very troubled by what I perceive as an accepted tactic of certain religiously inclined terrorist thugs to deliberately use large numbers of "innocent kids" and women and others as shields. *

Okay, so when these thugs use innocent ppl as shields, do they use the same number as shields day in day out, does a hamas leader hiding in a building housing innocent civilians load them all up in a tour bus when he moves from place to place (damn, i may have given the byatches an idea here :( ) ..dude moves in an armed car..blow his ass up then. Be a little bit more..humane. dont act like the terrorists that have no regard for innocent lives. If Hamas & co think that the innocent lives they butcher are okay since it is is leading them towards their objectives, then when IDF takes on irresponsible actions where the civilian casualties are high, but that is justified as worth the mission. I dont see much difference.

*When terrorists do this, you are sort of faced with a real Sophie's Choice. If the terrorist(s) that are legitimate targets will kill 100 people if they get away and they surround themselves with 10 innocent kids to protect themselves, do you walk away saving 10 innocent lives at the expense of the deaths of 100 others? *

Mv the casualty count on both sides paints a different picture. and as I noted again. the guy is not going to be hiding in a building forever, he will move and that is the right time.

Additionally maybe a mission where you send snipers and commandos to get him, where u have some military casualties on your end and you get the target instead of lobbing some missiles at a housing complex or attacking an apartment complex with fighter jets and helicopters.

These are not easy calls or easy decisions. And often, they must be made in split seconds.

MV Israel's retaliation to suicide attacks is not a knee jerk reaction attack, it does not happen 10 minutes later. Everyone knows that a retaliation will be made, yet the method of retaliation is always the same, ruthless, vulgar display of power, as a punitive treatment for not just the "suspected" cell, but to everyone around there who really wants nothing to do with it, except the ability to live a dignified life where they can do well for themselves and their family.

** Sometimes it is better not to attack the building where the Hamas terrorist is hiding out amongst 100 innocents. Better to wait until he leaves and gets in his car and hit him with a missile. That's still a dangerous attack. Maybe 4 innocents also die. You can be darn sure that people will decry the slaughter of the 4 innocents by the IDF without considering the 100 that weren't killed in the building a moment before and the 100 that would have been killed in the imminent suicide attack. **

Or a sniper...yes and no matter whatever is done people will still be upset at innocent casualties. If my child happened to be in that area when a missile hit the area and he died, you can be darn sure that I will be pissed, not only me my family and neighbourhood will be pissed.

yes the casualty count would have been reduced by targetting the guy in the street rather than in the car, but honestly do you think people will say, oh thats okay..atleast they did not bomb the building he was in.

That would always be the sentiment..that however does not excuse a decision based on..oh well we will hear it anyways, so why wait until the SOB gets in the car lets just blow up the building and be done with it. Or lets go and bulldoze the home of a suicide bomber..what do his kids,parents, siblings have to do with his action.

That..in my view is an irresponsible, morally reprehensible and barbaric decision..IDF has taken that decision again and again.

*When you hear people so easily and quickly label the death of 4 innocents in my example above as evidence of genocide and never say a peep about things like Sabra and Shatil circa 1985, it gets awfully old, awfully quick. *

true, and on the other side of teh coin when you see an ongoing campaign of IDf acting the way they are, and everyone being silent about their atrocities or even making excuses for them, that gets old very quick too.

Sabira and Shateela was a tragedy, period. For IDF though it is one major blemish on their record prior to that, then and since then which is has blemishes on it and it only continues to add those.

I know palestinians who hate Pakistan and Pakistanis for the help Pakistani advisors provided to Jordan to crush the Palestinian uprising..but that was a one time thing, they have never forgiven Pakistan for that, but it is not a part of a continuing and ongoing daily situation that they face.

^ I don't have much disagreement with anything you say above. We are fairly close in our philosophies. How we apply that philosophy to specific events may differ from time to time, but not the underlying philosphy.

One quarrel I do have with you is this statement:

"true, and on the other side of teh coin when you see an ongoing campaign of IDf acting the way they are, and everyone being silent about their atrocities or even making excuses for them, that gets old very quick too. "

On this Forum, I haven't seen or read people "making excuses" for IDF atrocities nor have I seen the "American contingent" remaining silent either. You won't find any thumbs ups for the Sabra Shatila (circa 1982 or 1985) slaughter of Palestinians. You have seen more constructive alternatives to the Intifada offered by several Americans (myself included) than any other people. You have seen and heard from us that the struggle of the Palestinians for a homeland is close to our hearts. The main difference between those who typically label themselves pro-Palestinian and us is that we have a broader and what I believe more accurate perspective on the history of the Palestinians since 1947 and see that they have been duped, dumped upon, slaughtered and wronged by a whole lot of people including their Arab and Muslim brothers and sisters and that their plight today is a result of that entire history. And we also totally repudiate that the solution to the Palestinian plight requires being anti-Israel. To a large measure, the reason the Palestinians have no homeland today is that they have bought into the big 57 year old lie perpetrated by their Arab and Muslim brothers and sisters that being anti-Israel is the solution.

Mv that is not a quarrel with you but more with media at large. the example I gave of killing of "suspected" terrorists is one, I have not seen a statement by any news anchor to this day that no one has been able to confirm that the guys were indeed terrorists.

It is not this forum or members of this forum that I am limiting myself to. As we all know by now, the groups and various sub groups dont always represent the entire society. So please do not take it as a personal critique, but more of an assessment of what I perceive things to be like overall.

Having read press releases from various groups that support Israel, which is fine and their business, I dont see much in the way of criticizing the idiotic actions. They may draw comparisons about US and Israel being democracies and what nots, or how both countries stad for the rights of the oppressed (sorry but Israel does not even come close to US...it may be good at watching out for teh rights of certain type of oppressed ppl but not as a blanket statement)

The issue is with polarization, is there condemnation of IDF actions, yes..does it get as much airplay or is it as strong no, seems more muted. the reverse is true on the other side of the world about this conflict, they focus on one side of the coin for the most part, we focus on the other..how exactly will we communicate wif niether side is looking at the full picture. all parties share some part of the blame here..arab countries, palestinians, israel, UN, US, UK..everyone involved has either done something wrong, or has failed the innocent palestinians and Israelis who are suffering due to this conflict.

that is my point, apologies if I made it sound like it was putting you under a microscope or putting you on trial. That was not the intent.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
Mv that is not a quarrel with you but more with media at large. the example I gave of killing of "suspected" terrorists is one, I have not seen a statement by any news anchor to this day that no one has been able to confirm that the guys were indeed terrorists.
[/QUOTE]

This part of your post is quite interesting to me. I have a totally different perception about this fact than you do. The use of the word "suspected" or "alleged" to qualify the word "terrorist" is not in my mind something that promotes an Israeli agenda or point of view. Sometimes, it's quite the opposite.

Take OBL for instance. He is indicted in the US but he has never been through a trial and convicted. Therefore, in one sense, he is an "accused", "suspected" and/or "alleged" terrorist. To me, the guy is flat out a terrorist and should be exterminated. Inserting the word "alleged" in front of "terrorist" when describing OBL mitigates the perception of culpability rather than enhances it.

Once the terrorist is blown to bits, there is no trial or conviction upon which a news anchor or anyone else could use to "confirm that the guys were indeed terrorists." I personally think that when the media calls a Palestinian who was killed by the IDF a "suspected terrorist" rather than a "terrorist", the news account tends to lead people to question the IDF action rather than cause support for it. You seem to view the label as biased in favor of Israel while I think that the label is often biased against Israel. The Hamas leader recently lit up was, IMO, a terrorist leader.

IMO, a terrorist is a terrorist regardless of whether he has been tried and convicted. Certain guys fall into that category. Certain guys may fall into that category.

MV

yes but suspected by whom, how, on what basis, none of that is clear and none of that is really made available.

I see where you are coming from when you say that media use of "suspected terrorist" makes ppl question IDF, however if you talk to people, you hear, of yeah some terrorists were blown up etc.

The fact that they may not have been terrorists at all escapes many because there is not a convincing case. now rantissi or other Hamas leaders etc, yeah thats a diff deal but when u hear 13 ppl killed of which 3 were suspected terrorists..ts is a case closed thing now, there is no statment made thats says, it was not confirmed that these guys indeed were terrorists, thus in a viewers mind the case is left dangling. Instead of suspected terrorists, if you use the term "people who were suspected of terrorism but there was no convincing proof that they were" paints a very diff picture than "3 suspected terrorists were killed"

suspected by whom, why, in all fairness if IDF goes and blows up some area and claims oh of the 15 ppl killed and 35 injured, 2 suspected terrorists were also killed, if that is a justification, however idiotic, then they should be made to show proof that this indeed were terrorists.

Also interesting is that these attacks always come as retaliation after some blast by the terrorists, dudes, if you knew where these guys lived, why dont u assassinate them before hand, here's a novel idea. this way they will not cause u problems and whoa, u save the lives of innocent ppl around them rather than launching an assault with planes and choppers in a populated area because oh daaang we know that terrorists live in apartment 5B of this bldg so lets just throw some stuff atthe bldg.

a terrorist is a terrorist, whether he has been tried and convicted, but one should have enough proof to know who a terrorist is. I dont recall how many times has IDF made any sort of proof available that the guys were really terrorists, not that it excuses killing of the innocents around, but hey what is then preventing me to say of the 15 ppl killed 3 err no 6 err no 7 yeah 7 thats the ticket, & were terrorists, who holds them accountable?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
MV

yes but suspected by whom, how, on what basis, none of that is clear and none of that is really made available.

a terrorist is a terrorist, whether he has been tried and convicted, but one should have enough proof to know who a terrorist is. I dont recall how many times has IDF made any sort of proof available that the guys were really terrorists, not that it excuses killing of the innocents around, but hey what is then preventing me to say of the 15 ppl killed 3 err no 6 err no 7 yeah 7 thats the ticket, & were terrorists, who holds them accountable?
[/QUOTE]

There's the rub. To whom are governments accountable? And, slightly different, to whom should they be accountable? A whole different topic for debate and discussion but one which could make your brain explode. I'd like to keep mine intact today though and think I'll just go out for some beer.

Re: Re: Re: The Forgotten Shiite Massacre at Sabra and Shatila

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *

6:21 original post by MV
6:45 post by you

patience brotha patience.

[/QUOTE]
Fraudia, I was not speaking of your silence or the silence in this particluar thread. I am talking of the overall silence on gupshup and the Muslim world in general. I know you are tired of 'speaking for your people' but you are a small voice that is drowned out by the masses. Honest and impartial posters will acknowledge that Muslims kill more more Muslims than Blair, Bush and Sharon combined. But just like the thread that tells the majority of Muslims don't blame Arabs for 9/11 - they are either blind, biased or lying. How can things change if the majority refuse to take responsbility or be honest in their assesment?

I'm sorry, but the hundreds of threads that bash the US, calls them pigs, and insults in dozens of other formats is not balanced in even the slightest by the lack of condemnation of Muslim killing Muslims by these same posters. It's hypocrisy pure and simple. It doesn't mean that there aren't a few 'fair and balanced' posters, but in comparison to the US-lynching mob they are very quiet.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
There's the rub. To whom are governments accountable? And, slightly different, to whom should they be accountable? A whole different topic for debate and discussion but one which could make your brain explode. I'd like to keep mine intact today though and think I'll just go out for some beer.
[/QUOTE]

UN?
we held iraq accountable for its attack on Kuwait..
we kicked Serb butt for their lameness and protected the Bosnians(USA USA USA!!!)
what about the others who go about breaking rules

there has to be some way, international courts?..something ...

Fraudiya, you are business dude right. Let me ask you a reality based question. If a company is being setup and there are multiple VC's involved. How do they decide who gets the most board seats?

Better yet, how is equity distributed among them. Now see if you can draw the parallel to the UN or whatever international courts situation.

Not all nations and people are created equal. US the largest and strongest country in the world. Why should it give away it's equity to Sudan.

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Forgotten Shiite Massacre at Sabra and Shatila

Originally posted by Seminole: *
**Fraudia, I was not speaking of your silence or the silence in this particluar thread. I am talking of the overall silence on gupshup and the Muslim world in general. *

I know, and my response was also based on over all what people hear, and what people dont hear.

*I know you are tired of 'speaking for your people' but you are a small voice that is drowned out by the masses. *

A small voice that you hear...because as annoying as it gets, I make it a point to speak.

** Honest and impartial posters will acknowledge that Muslims kill more more Muslims than Blair, Bush and Sharon combined. **

have killed..maybe..depending on how far back in history you want to go. because then eventually someone is going to get back to crusades..

just like more americans are killed by americans than terrorists :)

the difference is a continuig trend, and while during Iran Iraq war both sides killed many of each other, it is over..there is no ongoing daily weekly killing of each other's people..especially civilians.

*But just like the thread that tells the majority of Muslims don't blame Arabs for 9/11 - they are either blind, biased or lying. *

could be, but the same thread noted that a huge majority condemn it as well.

How can things change if the majority refuse to take responsbility or be honest in their assesment?

take responsibility for what? there is no "responsibility" .. why should I take responsibility for an action some psychos have committed. I had nothing to do with them then, now or in future. what responsibility..

the more accurate term would be that the majority needs to apply the right amount of blame to the right party.

*I'm sorry, but the hundreds of threads that bash the US, calls them pigs, and insults in dozens of other formats is not balanced in even the *slightest by the lack of condemnation by these same posters. **

By the same posters, but the lack of interest in US bashing by an exponentially large number of posters says something too. they dont have to come here and oppose these guys. The fact that they choose nto to bash says a lot too. doesn't it.

*It's hypocrisy pure and simple. It doesn't mean that there aren't a few 'fair and balanced' posters, but in comparison to the US-lynching mob they are very quiet. *

yeah cuz maybe they are tired of the pissing contest among people who fail to budge at all from their stances, and at worst even learn to agree to disagree. Its not hypocrisy, its being fed up, feeling that it is really not my problem..people do have better things to do than to try to stop a small but active group

how many times have you heard or seen callers to some of the uber right wong talk shows oppose them..usually its a back slapping festival. so you hear a few, does it mean that it represents the accurate mindset of the society..or that the others either dont get thru, or have no interest in trying to set the rcord straight because its the same ols ame ol and theior voice will be drowned.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *

I find this to be an interesting statement. Why is there a necessity for you to understand "why" the Shia slaughtered these folks? It's almost as if you are searching for an explanation or justification for the massacre. Is there a "why" that will make it OK or less horrid for ** the Amal militia to take 70 patients from their beds at Gaza Hospital and murder them? ** Tell me, is there a "why" that soothes the soul when a Muslim milita ** starves the populace to the extent that those still living must seek a special religious dispensation to eat the dead? **

For the love of God, in many ways the Shia massacres at Sabra and Shatila surpass in brutality the actions in 1982 for which so many Guppies call for Sharon's head on a war crimes tribunal. Those the Shias couldn't kill in a matter of weeks were starved to death over a period of years!!!

To me, the sole difference between the two events is the identity of the killers/attackers. In one case, they are Jews or under the control of Jews and in another they are Muslim. Ugliness and inhumanity is not reserved to people of a particular race or religion. It's sort of important for people to recognize the ugliness and frailties they possess when they look in the mirror before pointing the finger at others don't you think?

As to the poor Palestinians, they have always been relegated to the bottom of the garbage pile by everyone, including their Arab and Muslim brothers and sisters. Their homeland was sacrificed by the Arabs following the 1947 Partition in favor of nationalistic land grabs. The West Bank was stolen from them by Jordan. Syria and the Amal militia brutally massacred them to keep them weak and powerless in Lebanon.
[/QUOTE]

It was a simple Question. Why?

They killed because they wanted to grab their land or they killed because they were ordered to... etc etc

No where have I said that I am looking for justification.